Author: Received from Third Sector Division, Scottish Government

The Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts (Scotland) Order 2010 is being laid with the Parliament  this week.    

Scotland’s estimated share of the DBA funds is estimated to be around £12 million in the first year, £12 million in the second year and £1.5 million year-on- year thereafter. These sums are much lower than originally envisaged due to the scheme being a voluntary scheme with the banks/building societies and  funds being held back to meet any future claims from the general public who have recently discovered that they have monies in a lost account.  
 
Article 3 provides for a distribution of dormant account money to third sector organisations for meeting expenditure on or connected with services, facilities or opportunities which promote strong, resilient and supportive communities.  This is a direct link to Outcome 11 of the Scottish Government’s 15 National Outcomes – “We have strong, resilient and supportive communities where people take responsibility for their own actions and how they affect others”.  
 
If the Order is passed by the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Ministers intend to instruct BIG, under Schedule 3 to the Act, to prepare and adopt a strategic plan for Scotland . The strategic plan will be a statement of the BIG’s policies for the distribution of dormant account money for meeting Scottish expenditure. The Scottish Ministers will also use powers under section 22 of the Act to set out policy directions to guide BIG in the development of the plan.   It is expected that BIG will then hold a consultation on the draft Strategic Plan.  Once finalised, the draft Plan has to be agreed with the Scottish Ministers, who also have to lay it before the Scottish Parliament. 

Extract The Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts (Scotland) Order 2010

Distribution of money for meeting Scottish expenditure

1.—(1) A distribution of dormant account money for meeting Scottish expenditure may be made only—

(a) to third sector organisations; and

(b) for meeting expenditure on or connected with the provision of services, facilities or opportunities which promote any strong, resilient and supportive community.

(2) For the purposes of this Order, a “strong, resilient and supportive community” is a community—

(a) whose members—

(i) are safe, healthy and able to contribute to the social, environmental and economic well-being of the community; and

(ii) have access to high quality services and economic opportunities; and

(b) which is able to withstand or recover from difficult social, environmental or economic conditions.

Plans have been finalised for the establishment this year of an independent support body intended to represent the needs of local bodies across England that own or manage land or assets for the benefit of the community.

The Department for Communities and Local Government recently awarded social policy charity the Carnegie UK  and research unit Community Finance Solutions a £100,000 over two years to set up the CLT National Facilitation Body to support community land trusts.

It is set to be delivered through an existing body due to be announced in June and will aim to assist CLTs’ growth by forging links with stakeholders including social lenders development trusts, Councils and housing and regeneration quango the Homes & Communities Agency. It is also intended to provide training and legal advice, and lobby government.

Andrew Williamson, a consultant specializing in CLTs and a supervisory board member of the new body, said: “CLTs are moving from the experimental phase to the replication stage. This initiative is a further welcome step in their development.’

Big Society – but only in England

Click here to see What Big Society means for England

At the launch of the Scottish Government and COSLA’s Community Empowerment Action Plan, LPL welcomed it as an important step on the road to greater levels of community empowerment in Scotland.  However 15 months on from the launch, our view is that there has been insufficient progress and in itself, the Plan is not sufficiently radical or ambitious to achieve significant change. There are six key areas where LPL considers further action by national and local government is required :

1. formally recognise the community sector as a distinct part of the Third Sector by publishing a national strategy designed to nurture its continued development

2. embark on a genuine process of community empowerment marked by a commitment to devolve resources and decision making away from government and down to the most appropriate local level.
 
3. invest in a programme designed to increase the flow of assets into community ownership

4. recognise that community empowerment requires a process of capacity building for communities and that this cannot be delivered effectively if delivered by government.

5. recognise that revitalising the relationships between local communities and local government is fundamental to community empowerment and that the one needs to be seen as integral to the other

6. the community led response to climate change is widely recognised as being the crucial ‘first step’. Much more needs to be done to harness current levels of activity and link to the wider community empowerment agenda.                                            

All the email said was, “The meeting will discuss how to build a ‘big society’ where families and communities are supported and strengthened; and how to make a reality of this vision by making sure that the big society is matched by big citizens.” That was it. Although I did discover on the way home that the Lib/Con coalition had released a three page outline of their Big Society plans on the same day to the press.

When you get to Downing Street, you have to pass through some airport style security, at the gate, but then I found myself pretty much left alone in the street, bar the odd press hack on the other side of the road. What to do? On TV that famous number 10 door just opens anytime someone important looks at it. Well, it didn’t do that for me. I had to ask a policeman, whilst simultaneously praying my slightly comical dithering wasn’t going to end up on ‘Have I Got News For You’. Needless to say the policeman quietly advised me to use the door knocker. Of course, I thought, you just knock on the door.

Once inside, there were staff everywhere – presumably to make sure people didn’t inadvertently stumble into Samantha and the family choosing the new wall paper. I was efficiently ushered into the “Rose Garden” which you’d recognise, as it was the site of that first Dave and Nick double act when they announced their Liberal Conservative Coalition. There were nibbles and soft drinks, and a man cutting a tiny privet hedge into a perfect box with nail scissors in the corner.

It was to be a small gathering, just 22 of us in fact, including politicians and civil servants. And many of the attendees were as bemused as I was about how they’d ended up there. Indeed, it was Nick Hurd’s first time in the Rose Garden too – despite just being appointed as Minister for Civil Society.

The only person there who I’d had the pleasure of meeting before was Will Perrin at Talk About Local – who kindly got me invited to Downing Street in the first place. There was the Mayor of Middlesborough, Ray Mallon, who seems famed for a zero tolerance approach to policing and winding up the local Old Labour establishment. There was Martha Lane Fox, a digital inclusion campaigner. There was Camila Batmangheldidjh, social entrepeneur and founder of well respected Youth Charity Kids Compan and there were also representatives from a range of other third sector organisations. And there was me.

Both David and Nick (we’re on first name terms now you see?) said that they really saw the “Big Society” idea as one of the key areas where the Tories and the LibDems shared common ground – even if they’d been using different words to describe it. Apparently they both have a “love of this area” and “hope for a beautiful friendship” between the third sector and the government.

And a cynic would say they might well. Afterall, with billions of pounds worth of cuts coming, how else will the local services we all depend upon be maintained? Well the Big Society vision could see communities themselves owning and managing assets or providing more local services. The Prime Minister spoke of a ‘Community right to buy’ for public assets, and a “social investment bank” to help them do it. He wants to see a new generation of community organisers, supported by more open and accessible public data, and he mentioned some sort of National Service programme for teenagers. At the mention of that last point, I’m not sure if I was the only one looking at the floor…

The ensuing discussion focussed a lot around the sustainability of neighbourhood organisations, and how good ideas can be replicated elsewhere. Some of the people from larger third sector organisations bemoaned the fixation of funders for ‘new’ ideas and innovation, and a lack of opportunity to scale up proven ideas or replicate them in other areas.

Will Perrin and Martha Lane Fox made the case for new technology as a vital means of empowering both individuals and communities to become more active citizens. A notion that I would heartily support. Afterall, if it wasn’t for Twitter, I wouldn’t have found myself in 10 Downing Street in the first place.

This said, for my part I was acutely aware that, as the only Scottish representative around the table, that most of this policy area was devolved to Holyrood. So with my 3 minutes to advise the prime minister, I made the point that in Scotland some communities have already benefited greatly from a Community Right To Buy, and that it would indeed be a marvelous thing if it could be extended to cover the whole of the UK.

I also highlighted the Climate Challenge Fund as a Scottish example of an approach to funding neighbourhood led organisations that has put resources in the hands of community groups and allowed them to come up with a huge range of very unique, local responses to the global problem of climate change. I managed to get a quick plea in to Dave and Nick to see if they could persuade Alex Salmond to extend these ideas further – and perhaps extend the Libservatives ‘social investment bank’ to cover Scotland too.

Lastly, I also made the point that if Nick and Dave are serious about devolving power to the neighbourhood level, then they must be prepared for variations in public services, and sometimes for local residents groups to make mistakes. Will they baulk at the first media cry of ‘Post code lottery’ when something is perceived to go wrong?

And there I had to stop. But there were things I didn’t have the chance to say. Not least my concerns about accountability and participation. The best critique I’ve seen of the “Big Society” idea is that it’s like those self-service checkouts you get at supermarkets – the supermarkets tell you it’s a good idea, but people still choose to wait in the queues for the staffed checkouts as they feel they’re being hoodwinked. To many, it still seems preferable to have someone else work the complicated machines for you.

Similarly, will people want to participate in the Big Society at all? Some studies seem to suggest that they don’t really want to get too involved – they’d prefer it if public services “just worked”. How many people are desperate to take up the invitation to get involved in managing services, attending meetings & writing minutes? Like Oscar Wilde said, “The trouble with Socialism, is that it takes up too many evenings.” My inclination is that new web tools, used well, can make it easier for more folk to voice an opinion on local matters, as these tools do allow them to participate at a time and place that is convenient. Members of Greener Leith will know that this is something that we’ve always been interested in.

Secondly, whilst it’s assumed that small community organisations taking over the management of public assets or services is a good thing – how will the new management be held accountable over the long term? What happens if the community group can’t deliver? How will the government help communities that might not have the resources, or the skills, or the people willing to take advantage of their new found rights and powers? Will they find themselves excluded from the Big Society?  Will it really be cheaper than simply keeping services in the public sector? Safeguards need to be built in – and the devil is in the detail. And we haven’t seen that yet.

I couldn’t help but think that if we’re to see a new civic revival then we’ll need an investment in old school community development, adult education and a real commitment to making more local government information accessible and understandable. Without this, it will be hard to sustain that army of ‘community organisers.’

It was an interesting trip – and despite the reservations outlined above, it is significant that the coalition have decided to make this area the first ‘joint leadership’ policy announcement since they came to power. And most people there, it seems left in a spirit of optimism – hoping to see the promised civic revival come about in due course – even if it will have to filter through Holyrood to make any difference here. In the meantime, those classic shots you see on TV of the ministers assembled around the cabinet table will never look the same to me again (Yes, it does look bigger on TV.)

On the way out one participant wondered whether we’d be invited back in a few months time to review the governments progress on delivering their Big Society policies. Otherwise he asked, “what was the point?” Indeed, I agreed, and I never even managed to steal a teaspoon…

Author: Peter Hetherington, The Guardian

With its thousands of volunteers, could the National Trust provide a model for running local parks and libraries as town halls face financial meltdown?

Imagine a country where parks, libraries, leisure centres and a string of other facilities run by the local council are up for grabs; where valuable buildings and assets, from schools to swimming pools and land holdings, are hived off to neighbourhood groups, parish councils, charities or not-for-profit companies.

While public sector unions, and the municipal establishment, might visibly blanch at such a prospect, in the real world that we are now entering, after the insularity of a four-week election campaign, tough choices are looming. Functions seen as important, yet non-essential, face an uncertain future under any new government.

With town and county halls facing cutbacks that seemed unimaginable barely 12 months ago – take your pick from a range of economies ranging from 15% to 30% overall – some of the most respected thinkers in English councils are edging towards a root-and-branch reappraisal of local services.

Well before David Cameron and his advisers coined the ‘big society’ slogan, with all its connotations of DIY delivery, these radical minds were hard at work with their alternative vision of maintaining some local services with little or no cash to support them.

That vision includes mobilising a small army of volunteers in communities to take over services such as libraries, alongside an ambitious new structure, perhaps emulating the National Trust, to run parks and other facilities. A pipe dream? Not according to the man who will assume one of the top jobs in local government, charged with driving self-regulation and greater efficiency in English councils.

Rob Whiteman, chief executive of Barking and Dagenham council, next week takes charge of the Improvement and Development Agency (IDeA) for local government. He comes armed with far-reaching ideas and a key theme: more for less. His overriding mantra: “Never waste the opportunity of a good crisis.”

Whiteman volunteers the National Trust model as one way of filling an emerging hole in town hall finances and maintaining services dear to the heart of many residents. “Getting on to running things is probably going to be more like the National Trust, where we rely on interested parties, volunteers, communities, rather than employing everybody,” he says.

“In London, could we have – say – a London Trust that runs our parks and our open spaces and would be accountable to local government which would set it up but would capture the involvement of communities in being able to run their own parks. We’re going to see new models developed where local councils join together to create vehicles for the community to run their own services … where people say, ‘We’ll run that now on a voluntary basis.'”

The radical agenda, being pursued by Whiteman seems to have support across the political spectrum with all main parties embracing ‘localism’ and a devolution of power from Whitehall to town halls, while accepting – in varying degrees – that new forms of delivery will be necessary to maintain services in a much harsher economic climate.

“Ultimately, we need a new constitutional settlement for local government,” Whiteman insists. “In a way, we don’t have local government. We have elected councils working alongside quangos and national departments. The way national government can change the form and function of local government at will is unconstitutional in most other countries.”

Rising to the challenge of a new job, he quickly warms to this theme: “We need a settlement of what is done at national and at local level and we need constitutional reform and we need devolution. Most independent commentators would now say Britain is one of the most centralised countries in the developed world and the bureaucracy of Whitehall reaches into so much performance now. It’s not only unaffordable, it also no longer does the job – it has reached its crest and there simply isn’t going to be any more improved performance coming out of this clapped-out system.”

Whiteman, 48, has a wealth of experience from the private and public sector. A former graduate trainee-cum-store manager with WH Smith, he subsequently served his time as rating officer, financial controller and then deputy chief executive with four London councils – Newham, the Corporation of London, Camden and Lewisham – before taking the helm at Labour-run Barking and Dagenham five years ago.

While taking that challenging east London borough into the top performance league of English local government, he helped the authority to set a new standard for learning and skills programmes, creating 750 apprenticeships along the way – something of a record for local government.

But with savage spending cuts looming, Whiteman, who has an economics and politics degree from Essex University, believes his version of localism can bring substantial economies by giving local government the power to join up services across the public sector.

“The trade-off that will have to be made between priorities are best made locally and I don’t believe that Whitehall departments can decide what is the real priority for any one particular area, whether Barking and Dagenham or any other authority in the country,” he insists. “These trade-offs have to be made locally because councils and their partners understand the priorities and the things that really make a difference.”

In short, Whiteman believes that greater devolution to localities will help deliver at least some of the economies needed while at the same time joining up overlapping services and making, say, the delivery of social care more efficient.

With growing evidence of councils and government agencies sometimes falling over each other to address the same social care problem, Whiteman insists: “Duplication because of our top-down, silo-based way of doing business is unaffordable and inefficient.”

This begs the question of whether a new government will break Whitehall’s centralised culture, forcing it to devolve. And if it does, will communities shoulder the extra responsibilities implicit in the Whiteman agenda? “I think communities will want to do more,” he insists. “But even if they didn’t there is still an argument for localism – so that councils, primary care trusts, police command units, further education colleges can see more public money pooled in order that it is more efficiently spent and priorities take place.”

Equally, he says, big national “industries”, such as Jobcentre Plus, need bringing into line: “They can spend a huge amount of money in a locality but [the organisation] is effectively part of a Whitehall machine rather than part of the local delivery mechanism.”

At the IDeA, largely funded by a £25m annual “top-slice” from Whitehall’s revenue support grant to local government, Whiteman has some tough decisions to take. He is preparing for a 40% cut in the organisation’s budget over three years. That will mean both refocusing the IDeA with its 200 staff, while making it more assertive as the self-improvement arm of the Local Government Association group, of which it is part.

Scrap inspection

Does that mean councils, if necessary, directly challenging a government to live by its localist promises and commitments to scrap an inspection and regulation regime overseen by an expensive Audit Commission?

“I think local government is more confident to do things without waiting for permission. On the whole, most local authorities think we’ve got too much top-down performance management, too much intervention and too much regulation and that, actually, we are increasingly self-confident and can deal with our own improvement, collaborate in order to help each other, but also that we push back on things that are a waste of money or not in the interests of our community.”

Jokingly, Whiteman cautions that England is unlikely to see a new age of “Poplarism” – a reference to 30 councillors from the former east London borough of Poplar jailed for six weeks in 1921 for distributing local taxes to the needy, rather than handing them over to the London county council. Nevertheless, he insists: “I think we’re about to see a decade of local government becoming more self-confident and saying, ‘These [Whitehall spending] silos are a waste of public money and we’re going to push back,’ and local government is not just waiting for permission but just wants to get on and deliver in a more effective way. On the ground you are seeing authorities pushing at the edges – integration, for instance, between some councils and [NHS] primary care trusts. But this happens in spite of the system not because of it.”

State roll-back

Then, of course, there is the vexed issue of direct community control. “People are interested in their local schools, whether streets are safe,” Whiteman says. “How do we turn that into something positive, where the role of local institutions is to be shaped by the community? Because the state will have to roll back in some areas – we might not be able to afford to run, say, every library.”

That takes us back to the National Trust with its 3.8m members and 61,000 volunteers. “This is a wonderful institution where some of our great historic buildings are basically kept open and maintained, run by volunteers,” Whiteman stresses. “It’s a different delivery model to – say English Heritage – where the state maintains buildings and employs people. Most people would say, if they visit properties, that they think the National Trust is better run. No disrespect to English Heritage, but for public services now, we’re going to see more of a National Trust model.

Author: Alastair McNeill, Hamilton Advertiser

THE campaign to save Uddingston village hall from closure stepped up a gear this week.

Earlier this year, a survey commissioned by South Lanarkshire, who run the facility, estimated that it required repairs costing £215,000.

With the authority facing a £17.5m budget deficit, the future of the Old Mill Road church hall building looked bleak.

However, a steering committee made up of representatives of organisations who use the hall and village councillor Jim McGuigan met on Monday evening to look at ways of keeping the facility open.

One way forward is taking the building out of council control, running it via a community trust, and seeking alternative sources of funding.

Councillor Jim McGuigan explained: “I believe the costs estimate given by the council to be excessive.

“I think that figure can be brought down to a more realistic level.

“We also hope local tradesmen will offer their services at a reduced rate.

“We’ve already been given £50,000 from a very generous donor who wishes to remain anonymous.

“I’m hopeful we can raise the remainder from other external funding sources, like the lottery for example.”

The council survey found that nails which held up roof slates had rusted and water had penetrated the building, causing dampness in the rear wall. One source had told the Advertiser that the building was “past its best” and that demolishing the hall and putting up houses on the site was a possible way forward.

The hall is used by Uddingston Pipe Band, mothers and toddlers groups and dance classes.

Uddingston Disabled Sports and Social Club, who meet in the hall on Monday evenings, have petitioned villagers and collected 1000 signatures in support of retaining the hall.

Councillor McGuigan added: “It’s a facility that the village cannot afford to lose. I have had very positive and co-operative discussions with council officials so far and I am hoping that will continue.”

Author: Polly Toynbee, The Guardian

It was a melancholy pre-election visit at the end of an era and the end of a project symbolising what Labour did – and all it leaves unfinished. I followed the fortunes of the Clapham Park estate as a testbed for judging Labour. With near mystical belief in community activism, Labour gave the nation’s 39 poorest estates a 10-year budget of £56m to transform themselves. The New Deal for Communities was, unlike Cameron’s DIY sham, an authentic Big Society idea, giving serious money to a board with residents holding the controlling vote. It’s a New Labour story – good intent, money put in and a naive belief that symptoms of poverty can be cured without confronting inequality itself.

Clapham Park is 10 minutes’ brisk walk from where I live in south London, and yet a social world away. I lived here for a few months writing my book Hard Work, when I took basic jobs to explore the sub-survivability of the minimum wage. The residents’ board has let me sit in on meetings and drop back from time to time to watch their progress.

Donna Charmaine Henry, chair of the board, sat in the Hand in Hand pub opposite the primary school, recalling when we met 10 years ago. She never expected her life to take this turn. An elegant woman, born in St Kitts and brought up in Oldham, she has lived here since 1975. “I had nothing to do with the community. I came home from work, looked after my family, shut the front door and shut out everything outside,” she says. There was a lot to shut out: drug dealers and prostitutes, now mostly gone, and 40 crack houses.

She was asked out of the blue to stand for election by a neighbour she barely knew: “I had no idea what I was getting into.” It was often a rough ride – only two originals are still on the board. “You need broad shoulders or you go home in tears. The rows! The patience you need!” They give up most evenings, their small flats filled with files, shouldering blame from residents who want everything fixed right now. “But worth it, absolutely, for the things we’ve done.”

Anyone who thinks “community” is cuddly and consensual has never tried it. Political parties exist for good reason, to rationalise disagreement. Though the vote on the estate went 60% in favour, there was vigorous opposition when the board decided to redevelop the worst blocks by handing them over to a housing association to bring in private money. Expecting democracy to flourish in this high-turnover, partly non-English-speaking, low-voting non-community was often more Afghanistan than Ambridge.

Donna says: “When I hear David Cameron and his Big Society expecting people to join in and do everything themselves, it makes me really angry. He has no idea how difficult it is and it needs big government backing. He’s daydreaming.” The project had the money for the board to buy in professionals to run their programmes. But there were, we agree ruefully, Labour daydreams too.

Clapham Park’s 7,300 inhabitants in dilapidated and crime-ridden 1930s and 40s blocks had weak schools and no community groups. The targets set were eye-watering: 100% of housing must reach “decent homes” standard with crime down to national average levels and a halving of fear of crime, and a halving of sickness; GCSE grades, adult qualifications and unemployment must emulate national averages; 85% of residents must say they are “satisfied with the area”. The guiding target said three-quarters must “feel involved” in their community, rather more than in Mayfair or Notting Hill (2%-4% is all professional organisers expect). Donna and her local heroes put the rest of us to shame.

The wonder is how much they achieved. Superhuman effort meant learning spreadsheets and masterplans. Spending money was slow, every penny passported through three tiers of government. Nothing was easy. Was it a success? Local schools have improved greatly. The brightest change is two new children’s centres. According to a 2008 Mori survey, residents’ satisfaction with the estate is up, at 74%. Now only 20% feel unsafe walking at night. Two-thirds think the project has improved the area. As for the people, 6% more have qualifications, smoking is down, 3% more are in work and 10% fewer live on very low incomes. When the project ends this year, a legacy charity hopes to keep Timebank (which swaps chores and favours), the internet community radio station, a bike repair project, youth schemes, the women’s group, coffee mornings for the elderly, and the annual summer festival.

But sadly, there still stands White House, the decrepit 1930s block where I lived briefly. It is not supposed to be there, but there is not even a scheduled date for demolition. True, it looks better. When I lived here netting caught bits falling off the pockmarked facade, but it has been painted, and the staircase is no longer urine-stinking or graffitied. My neighbour, Micky, with his fierce-looking studs that belie a gentle nature, has had central heating fitted, but my old flat and most of the rest are still freezing. The block has had only a lick and a promise. Time spent on estate democracy and the property development crash took its toll in delays.

As everywhere, housing was a great Labour failure. But how do you measure life-changing success when, as in most poor places, half the residents who lived here 10 years ago have gone? People helped to get jobs escape and are replaced by new problem families, so statistics tell only half the story.

Walking back home I thought over this microcosm of New Labour with its hyperbolic promises brought down to earth by hard realities. The social distance between Clapham Park and well-off Clapham where I live is as wide or wider now. Like Britain, the estate is brighter, cleaner, safer and better off with tax credits – but the social chasm between their children’s lives and those 10 minutes away is as deep as ever.

This reminder of how hard it is to make real social change only adds to my despair at what a Conservative government would do. Cuts deeper than Margaret Thatcher’s will hit these people hardest, risking all the progress made. Gordon Brown’s deluded leadership deficiency is haemorrhaging Labour votes. But if centre-left people don’t vote tactically in every seat for whoever best keeps a Conservative out – Labour or Lib Dem regardless of personal preference – it is Donna’s Clapham Park people who will be stricken by George Osborne’s first emergency budget.

CitizensUK five-day leadership training programme explicitly makes the connection between conflict, relationship building and politics, teaching as it does that the word “confront” is derived from the Latin for bringing people face to face.

CitizensUK argues that politics involves face to face encounter in order to settle disputes and that such conflict can either be creative, generating new relationships; or destructive, leading to violence. A central commitment of community organising as a practice is that politics is the non-violent way through which to settle disputes.

A second challenge to liberal conceptions of “good” politics is that community organizing is committed to substantive visions of the good life – hence its reliance on religious institutions.

Most liberal political philosophies favour procedural accounts of justice and are very nervous about religion precisely because religions are committed to “thick” conceptions of the good life. This is seen to be inherently oppressive of individuals and the enemy of tolerance.

Yet it is the experience of community organisers that to motivate people to act they need deep convictions and shared moral values.

The craft of the organiser is to build relationships across different traditions so that instead of working against each other, local congregations and institutions work together to address the real, mostly economic needs of their members.

For this to happen the organiser must not only build relationships but also help identify goods in common: a living wage, safer streets, affordable housing, better schools and the like.

Here we encounter another paradox for liberal politics. Liberalism tends to make equality its ruling principle. Community organising clearly demarcates between leaders and followers, suggesting that when it comes to engaging in political action and public life, not everyone is equal.

Moreover, it works with often very hierarchal and in some cases patriarchal institutions. Community organising as a form of politics is not against equality – most of its campaigns are precisely about demands for greater equality of outcomes.

But it holds that the pursuit of equality without due attention to “fraternity” is the enemy of democracy not its fulfilment. When equality becomes the only organising principle of social and political relations it undermines the forms of relational power that genuinely protect individual freedom.

The dominance of equality focused contractual relations over what we might call covenantal and corporate forms means that in practice, non-contractual forms of life – kinship, neighbourhood, profession, and creed – are dissolved since they are viewed as a restraint on individual freedom.

Liberalism emphasises empowering the individual and the need to free him or her from the “constraints” of religion and tradition.

However, the analysis of community organising suggests that under conditions of economic globalisation the enactment of democratic citizenship by individuals requires traditions and institutions to sustain the possibility of such action. In short, individual freedom is premised on the pursuit of collective freedom.

Without the institutions and the modes of associative power institutions enable, the individual is left utterly naked before the power of the market and the state.

The demos is not an ochlos or crowd in which each does their own bidding; rather it requires coordinated and common action in pursuit of shared goods. Community organising embodies just such a way of moving from a crowd to a demos.

Luke Bretherton is Senior Lecturer in Theology & Politics at King’s College London and writing a book on community organising in the UK and US.

Council assets under pressure

DTAS is running a policy symposium on Asset Transfer on 26^th May.

To register click here   

Extract from report – Public Asset Transfer: Empowering Communities

Summary of findings from interviews

Each interview was introduced with a short explanation of why the review was being carried out with specific references to the Community Empowerment Action Plan, work that has been taking place in other parts of the UK and in particular the significance of the Quirk Review in terms of the Review’s impact on the development of policy and practice in England.

While a significant number of Councils were broadly aware of the existence of the Community Empowerment Action Plan, only a few were aware of the references in the plan to the contribution that community ownership of assets could make, and fewer still were familiar with the findings of the Quirk Review and its report – Making Assets Work.

This may explain why only a very small number of councils were found to be making a direct connection, either strategically or operationally, between how they managed their assets and the how communities within the local authority area could be supported to become more empowered and resilient.

Asset management policy – key findings

Aim of asset management. The overarching purpose which characterised  the approach of most councils towards managing their assets was to have an estate of the correct size and condition which is fit for purpose in terms of being able to meet their service delivery obligations. 

Recent increase in proactive approaches the management of assets.  A significant number of councils reported that they had recently undertaken comprehensive asset reviews and were in the process of implementing newly agreed asset management strategies.  The key drivers behind this increase in proactive asset management activity appears to have been a combination of the recent Audit Scotland report, internally driven processes of service rationalisation, and external budgetary pressures. Of these, the principle driver of policy was most commonly reported as the need to rationalise assets in order to reduce the associated revenue costs.  This pressure had intensified in recent months as the prospects of severe constraints in public spending have become more certain. The need to generate capital receipts was also considered to be  important but current market conditions were severely restricting activity in this respect.

Strategies not joined up.  No council cited the disposal or transfer of assets to community groups as being part of, or reflected in, any formal strategy or council policy relating to community empowerment.  A small number of councils reported that they were familiar with the correlation between community development and asset ownership and as a result were operating informal policies which had been informed by the experience of council officers and which had evolved over many years through local custom and practice. In general however the absence of any formal local authority strategy or policy was not necessarily considered to be a barrier to asset transfer. Most respondents viewed any barriers as being external to the council.

Disposal of surplus assets.  For the majority of councils, asset disposal was typically considered as an option only after the council had declared an asset to be surplus to its service requirements.  The most common description of Council policy in these circumstances was to offer the asset, in the first instance, to community planning partners and thereafter to place it on the open market. For these purposes, the community sector was not considered to be a CP partner. Whether this reflected a wider issue of the community sector’s engagement in the local community planning process was beyond the scope of the review.

Asset transfer practice – key findings

Ad hoc and demand led.  Asset transfer to community organisations was referred to by most councils as being ad hoc and in the main arising out of direct approaches to the council from local groups.

Leases rather than title.  With very few exceptions, councils viewed the concept of asset transfer as referring to the transfer of management responsibility through a lease arrangement rather than the transfer of outright ownership. The leases could vary in length from medium term (15 – 20 years) to long term (99 year lease). Councils that expressed a preference for leases referred to the need for some assurance that these public assets could ultimately be brought back under council control if it were considered necessary. In addition, the majority of councils expressed concern that if public assets were to be disposed of, best value had to be the principle consideration and therefore consideration of disposal at less than market value would be unlikely.  Several councils argued that there is no material difference or advantage to be gained when choosing between the transfer of outright ownership and providing a very long lease.

Sale at less than market valuation.  However a small number of councils were willing to consider the case for disposing at less than market value where community benefit could be demonstrated. Current regulations require councils to seek Ministerial approval (Section 74) before making such a transfer and although the government is currently consulting on whether this requirement should be lifted, councils did not view the additional requirement as an impediment to the transfer of assets.

Volume and value of transfers.  It proved difficult to obtain definitive information on the scale and value of disposals/transfers which had taken place over the past few years and which could in any way be extrapolated to describe an accurate national picture or trends over the last three years.   Overall, the scale and value of assets transferred through lease arrangements over this period appears to be relatively minimal, and with respect to the transfer of outright ownership, the level of reported activity was negligible.

Type of asset transferred.  The main asset class which councils consider in this context is what might be referred to as “community amenity” assets: former town halls, village halls, community centres, bowling greens, golf courses etc. In many cases these were being leased at peppercorn rents and sometimes with the council retaining an element of maintenance responsibility. However, a number of councils appeared to be reviewing their approach to this asset class because many of these assets are no longer considered core to service delivery, give rise to increasing revenue costs and there is additional pressure to be more transparent re how financial support is provided to groups. (“Following the public pound” report by Audit Scotland cited).  A variety of approaches are being adopted or considered including large scale transfers on a locality basis into an arm’s length trust, case by case reviews, and putting leases on more commercial terms with corresponding grants from the council to offset increased costs to groups where this is consistent with council policy objectives and priorities.

Demand or supply led?  It is difficult to determine whether the emphasis on this type of community asset reflected a general demand deficit from community groups or a lack of an appreciation on the part of councils as to why or how different types of asset, with more obvious commercial potential, might be of interest/value to a community.   For instance while many councils appeared to be reviewing other asset classes (e.g. offices, schools) with a view to rationalising their estate, there was no evidence that disposal of these assets to the community sector would typically be considered. 

Demands for ownership blamed on funders.  In general, councils reported limited demand from community groups to purchase assets outright.  It was expressed that most communities were content with long lease arrangements. Where interest in assuming outright ownership had been expressed, a number of councils voiced concerns that this was this was a result of grant conditions stipulated by certain funders rather than the result of genuine community led interest. This was not entirely borne out by the feedback from communities – some of whom reported that their local councils had not responded favourably to their expressed interest in taking on outright ownership.  However, a number of councils indicated that they could become more enthusiastic around sales rather than long leases in the future due to the anticipated budgetary restriction in the short to medium term.

Physical condition of asset.  Councils would normally seek to transfer a building in its current state of repair although some refurbishment might be considered where a third sector organisation was going to use the asset in order to deliver a service as part of a service level agreement with the Council.

The role of elected members.   Elected members were described as having both a corporate and constituency role.  Very few responses indicated any level of political leadership at a council-wide level in relation to promoting the asset ownership by communities but individual councillors were seen to be highly influential in making the case for particular projects in their wards. In more rural local authorities where communities are more dispersed, the local councillor appeared to have more influence and was able to argue for different terms of transfer than might exist elsewhere in the local authority area.  A number of councils reported that the changing political complexion of their councils since the last election has had an impact in terms of the overall willingness to engage in asset transfer (50% first time councillors at last election)

Understanding the rationale for asset transfer.  A number of councils appeared to acknowledge that community ownership or control of assets is potentially empowering for local communities and can result in better local services (especially in areas which might not otherwise be a high priority for council services).   However there was no evidence that this perspective was formally reflected in any council policies.  

Inherent risks of asset transfer.  Most councils reported that there are a number of significant risks involved in transferring assets to communities.  Most commonly cited were concerns over the capacity of groups to manage, maintain and develop assets.  This concern was linked to a concern around the longevity and sustainability of groups – the cyclical nature of the stability of community groups was often referred to. Councils were concerned that where they had transferred buildings to community groups, there nonetheless remained an undiminished public duty to step in if things went wrong (especially where iconic local buildings were concerned). In those circumstances the overriding concern was that the council would be taking an asset back in a worse condition than when it was transferred or having to operate an asset in a locality which would not necessarily be a priority for the council.  A number of examples were cited but further work is required to assess whether this general view is supported by the evidence..

Inclusive communities.  Some councils noted concern about how representative and inclusive some community groups were and that some groups appeared unwilling to share their facilities with the wider community.

Underlying attitudes.  On a number of occasions, councils raised concerns that asset transfer was akin to ‘selling off the family silver’  and therefore was a reason not to engage in it. This was linked to both losing control of an asset once it had been transferred,as well as forgoing potential future capital receipts.  The same concerns did not seem to apply to disposals on the open market which suggests that a different approach is applied to transfers to the community sector.  Many councils appeared to start from the assumption that there was little demand or interest from community groups to take on ownership of assets.  Consequently many councils felt it unnecessary to expect or propose to communities that they should consider taking on the burdens and risks of running an asset in circumstances where the council was prepared to fulfil that function. 

Concerns about capacity.  Many councils expressed concerns about the organisational capacity of groups to own, maintain and develop assets in the long term. Whether this is a generally held perception or whether it is based on practical experience was difficult to determine as very few concrete examples were presented. Only a very few councils said they would commit resources towards building the capacity of groups where capacity (or lack of it) was being identified as a risk factor in a potential transfer.

Funding and resources.  A serious concern for all councils was the lack of external funding and different forms of finance that are available to community groups who wish to acquire assets, especially at full market values. In addition the lack of available sources of ongoing revenue support to assist in the post acquisition phase was frequently cited as a barrier.  Given how few councils felt able to commit resources to build local capacity, a significant barrier to increased levels of transfer was the lack of external support available to groups.

Conclusions and implications for further work

The Review Process.  It is worth noting that the findings contained in this report are only a snapshot of how officers in particular sections of the each local authority responded to the researchers. Given the apparent absence of formal strategic linkages between approaches to asset management and community development and empowerment, it is quite possible that different perspectives on these issues would have been proffered if different sections of the council had engaged in the interviews.

Levels of awareness less well developed.  Despite this, it seems that the general levels of awareness of the key issues surrounding the community asset agenda is not as developed in Scotland as it is in parts of England. The development of the remaining elements of this programme of work will need to reflect this and consider the different organisational role and status of local authorities in Scotland to those in England..

Opportunities and risks in future.  The next few years could be potent ones for increased levels of asset transfer as many Councils throughout Scotland may be looking to rationalise their assets. However, there are risks regarding the type and quality of assets which could be on offer and the capacity of community groups to respond to opportunities.

Ownership vs. Long lease. The case for community asset ownership needs to be promoted and encouraged in a way which reflects the current levels of activity and general awareness of this agenda – both in terms of why communities might be interested in assets and how asset transfer can be of benefit to local council– particularly from the point of view of elected members.Furthermore, it would be worth exploring models of ownership and leasing, and the benefits that flow from each option. This could be taken forward during the remainder of the programme.

Resources are key.  Funding/financing and support to groups are critical issues which need to be addressed.  There appears to be a need for more and better designed funding and finance programmes.  The model pioneered by the Adventure Capital Fund (now called the Social Investment Business) in England and adopted in the English Government’s Communitybuilders programme is relevant (an integrated programme of feasibility, business planning and support; grant funding; and loan financing including patient capital) could be studied to assess applicability in Scotland.

National policy needs to connect locally.  A stronger focus on the community empowerment agenda from Scottish Government, backed up with resources, may help to create a more positive policy framework within which councils could respond. More specifically, the new guidance for councils promised in the CEAP on disposal at less than market value could also provide an opportunity to make a clearer, more positive statement about community asset ownership.

Promoting community anchor organisations.  Active promotion and support of the concept of community anchors by Scottish Government could encourage a more strategic and sustainable approach and would link community empowerment objectives nationally with community ownership of assets locally.

A pioneering model……
200 years ago in the poor parish of Ruthwell, Dumfriesshire, the local minister Rev Henry Duncan, set about the task of alleviating poverty, setting up the first savings bank.
 
This allowed people to pay small sums into an account and gradually build up savings. The people’s bank became a lifeline for many communities. It wasn’t in business to rip people off, but rather had a social conscience. Henry Duncan’s pioneering model was soon imitated in almost 100 countries. Out of this idealism, the Trustee Savings Bank grew.
 
Fast forward to 1985. The Trustees Savings Bank was floated on the stock market. As a way of compensating savers for the loss of their bank, four independent charitable foundations were established, including the Foundation in Scotland, and given shares. Rather than receive dividends, each had its own covenant set up in order to distribute 1% of pre-tax profits back to local communities.  Each of the four Foundations has a separate agreement with the Bank and although terms and conditions are similar, the share of the 1% pre-tax profit they receive is different. The Foundation in Scotland receives almost 20% of the monies that come from this arrangement.

In 1995, when the TSB Group and Lloyds Bank merged, Lloyds committed itself to supporting the work of the charitable foundations and continued to give 1% of pre-tax profits as set out in the covenant. Lloyds is not a donor to the Foundation nor is payment to the Foundation a benevolent, voluntary act. Funds are the Foundation’s by right of shareholding and the Group pays in line with their legal obligation.

To date, the Lloyds TSB Foundation for Scotland has received over £82 million from the Lloyds Banking Group and distributed around £85 million. This has been a huge investment in community projects throughout Scotland.

Then the recession hit……and after lengthy negotiations Lloyds TSB have chosen to terminate the historic covenant with the Foundation.

The Foundation is now in a nine year notice period, after which the connection with Lloyds Banking Group and the legacy of the Trustee Savings Bank will be severed.

In the meantime, the lack of funds from the share of pre-tax profits means that the Foundation has been forced to sell some of its shares in the bank in order to continue its grant making.  In April 2010 the Foundation announced that the funding stream made possible by the sale of these shares is to be named after Henry Duncan, the founder of the TSB.

Save the Foundation

Charities and community groups from across Scotland have joined forces to save the Lloyds TSB Foundation for Scotland. The charitable foundation is facing an uncertain future after Lloyds Banking Group ended the agreement that guarantees its share of the Bank’s pre-tax profits.
 
Launched on 6th May 2010, the campaign has one aim:
 
To push Lloyds Banking Group to reverse their decision to terminate the existing covenant with the Lloyds TSB Foundation for Scotland.
 
This is a people’s petition, which represents the grassroots nature of the campaign. This campaign is about the communities and individuals across Scotland who will lose out on services and support if Lloyds Banking Group fails to reinstate the existing covenant with the Foundation.
 
At the request of its members, the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations has agreed to act as a facilitator for the campaign.

http://www.savethefoundation.org/Home/signthepetition.aspx